>> like everybody else here i am living in an rv right now because for one i'm a struggling musician and i have equipment that is worth a lot of money and i came from a tent and i had things stolen from me. knowing that we have these programs out here is kind of nice, but instead of having signs saying what you can't do maybe have signs to tell you where you can go in certain neighborhoods whatever. where we park -- we're parked in an area that is not even really the business -- it's a business area, and we try not to park in front of businesses, so their business can have parking as one couple complaints business owners we had when we're not even in front of their building. i just

would like to know more information on where we can reside if there is going to be a ban completely exile us out of the city, but now that i am hearing what is going on that the programs are trying to find places for us i will try to find out a little bit more. i appreciate you guys doing what you can, but having a ban -- i know it's more of industrial vehicles that are being a problem than rv's, but i know a lot of the homeless people they recycle and some people don't clean up after themselves. they leave big messes and i think us being in rv's we try to contain our habitation. we have our bathroom for sanitation reasons. there is no really -- you know what? this is an idea for you

guys to have more bathrooms or like out houses in some areas -- >> thank you. >> for sanitary reasons -- >> thank you. >> because a lot of the businesses won't allow to you walk in. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you. >> hello. my name is isaac and i just have a couple of things that are on my mind. i was just wondering why -- okay. so the city is trying to fix the homeless issue, trying to improve the homeless shelters, and the overall aspect of the homeless, so my thing is why

would the city try to push people out of their homes to make it worse because if we're trying to fix one thing it's another thing, and this doesn't make any sense because there is already overflow in the shelter system and this would make it worse so i think you guys should try to fix the shelter system before you fix another thing so that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am that tasha det from theric and i live in supervisor campos' district and i found out about this by the coalition of homelessness, and i am really upset about it actually. to my understanding this law came through kind of without proper due process, not a ton of transparency, and people got upset about it, so there was an agreement made there would be public or

community conversations that would happen before this went into place. that there would be some sort of conversation where this would take place and for what reasons, and before it went into effect, before signs went up, so at this point it seems like a total disregard for the agreements made, but i guess that's just how things go. i don't know. i'm a person with integrity and i like to do what i say i'm going to do, and i expect that of my city, and right now i feel embarrassed about san francisco because what i hear is a priority on complaints about big vehicles. i don't hear a priority about affordable housing. that's the messed up priorities. affordable housing -- i mean okay shelter beds, more shelter beds. there aren't enough

shelter beds for the hundreds of people kicked out of the vehicles. i have been to shelters. i would not want to sleep there. if i had a car i would absolutely stay in my car, but regardless focus on affordable housing. then get to the issue of moving big vehicles that are a problem. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there are no other speakers this will be the last speaker. >> hello. my name is rubin and i volunteer with the coalition on homelessness and i wasn't planning to speak but was inspired by what the gentleman said in the green hoody said. seems like there has been regarding the vehicle housing issue some parameters and you can't be here with this size of vehicle or these hours and regarding what this gentleman said about putting -- and what this other gentleman said a lot where the vehicles can be or

giving options where they can put the vehicles, providing options for them that could integrate them more into the bigger picture instead of seeming to put them in a corner and back them up because with this issue and along with the tazer issue that san francisco is currently dealing with -- i lived here six years and it and san francisco is a forward city but seems like san francisco is a dime a dozen to me and to me is it a forward liberal forward thinking city? >> thank you. sure. let me just close public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. >> thank you supervisors. i just want to briefly say that the members of this committee, of the 11 members of the board

of supervisors are at the top three of individuals who have enlisted hope, have pressed hope and have asked us to be responsive and be creative in a number of different situations, but i do want to say that supervisor chu and kama blackstone of her staff have stayed with us and dialogue us with to make sure that we do the best possible. i want to say to the individual who testified about being in a vehicle not over sized and certainly we will extend whatever resources we can whether the ridiculous is over sized or not. >> >> clear clee we want it to go better and i feel this legislation has given us impetus to talk to the mayor's office and we need more resources for stabilization beds. i have been fortunate -- this is a year yesterday that i have been doing this job and so i really have

been grateful for the constructive engagement that i had with the coalition and i really appreciate that people have come forward that perhaps have never come to a board of supervisors before and testify and talk about their circumstances and that in of itself is a very positive step. that is something good because it gives us an opportunity to engage and understand better and to hopefully be more effective, and so i just want to pledge to you, the individuals here to speak, and the organizations they're involved in that we want to work closely to do right by people and make something positive happen within the context of an issue much larger than this. this is a subset of it and difficult element of it but there are people in the city that have been impacted and it's reasonable for them to petition their government and we need to take a difficult situation and make it work. i want to thank you. i understand the concerns

expressed today but you as supervisors have helped us to engage individuals and engaged us to do better and support initiatives so the city can do a better job at responding to homelessness. >> thank you very much. i department to respond -- thank you to the previous supervisor. i mean bevin was always responsive so we want to thank him for his continued service. i just wanted to respond to a few things that i heard today and i want to thank all of you, even of the folks that came out of a different mind than i am to express their thoughts. i heard folks talk about the vehicle and the fear what to do with the vehicle and potentially find a place for storage. i think this is something the legislation has been brought to the forefront

of the city and we had folks in vehicles and we didn't do much. we weren't successful for reaching out for a variety of reasons and i think the legislation has helped to get our minds, get bevin's mind, and the mayor's mind around this issue and homelessness and not just the streets but in vehicles and how can we find resources, space to house vehicles so people don't lose this one asset that they have and very much valued and bevin really brought that issue to us when we were talking about this legislation, something he brought toure mind that we weren't aware of it and he had a wonderful job and how we approach that issue and that wasn't done before and that under scores the need to continue the work there. another person talked about the 72 hour enforcement. we tried that. in the district since i

started back in 2007 had been working on the 72 hour enforcement. it's been the same. it hasn't changed at all so knowing that we have scwars resources with the police officers and can't do the enforcement that way to make the 72 hour work this is just an additional tool for the mta to use, so i want you to know we have tried using though resources. we have tried the existing laws on the book to address some of the perpetual issues in the district. that hasn't worked for us. it may work different places but it hasn't worked in our area. i think then there is the other issue about having to fix one thing before we move on to this. i think what this will help us do is really highlight the issues of folks who are living in their homes. i think it will really help us figure out what we need and the resources we need to address that issue, so i don't think that we fix -- if

we say you fix affordable housing before this issue then we wouldn't ever work on any other thing and affordable housing is such a large issue that we have to continue working on. you know the bonds recently passed by the voters to make significant investment in affordable housing. there is a lot more to do so that is something always on the forefront of the city's work, and finally i think i wanted to address the issue of process. i think that the mta has been working very much to lay the ground work how they would implement this from an organizational point of view. i know bevin has done a tremendous job reaching out to folks in the homeless count and the hot team and you can correct me if i am wrong. my understanding you plan to go back two more rounds so people are aware they're receiving that information so that is still forth coming. i think for the mta they wanted

to narrow down where the implementation would begin before they did outreach so meaning outreach fliering the neighborhood and folks are involved. they have been engaging the police department folks who have knowledge day to day about some of the ground floor issues happening in the neighborhoods. they reached out to the supervisor's offices and heard from the residents about problematic areas. they took the information and how are we going to start. how are we going to measure this? how do we create the laws so people understand the rules are? that's what they have been working on. they will continue to do outreach. they will continue once they have selected pilot areas they reach out to the neighborhoods and that is forth coming. that's why the implementation is not march 1 like everyone thought. it's going to be later so i wanted to make that point very clear. to the gentleman that was talking about the smaller vehicles that

would not be covered under this law. as you know this is simply for vehicles that meet a certain size and height and length restriction so that is different, so i just wanted to make sure some of the things and i think bevin wanted to reach out to you and other folks interested in the program even if you're not in an over sized vehicle for something positive. i know this is a very hard issue. we focus on the human element and this is a important piece of the legislation and we need to address this part, but i want to remind folks when we talked about this legislation as well it's not blanket across the city. we need to measure it and see how it works. in addition to that we have a lot of vehicle when is we did the initial look with the mta. i have 206 vehicles and more than half were registered to a san francisco address and not within a quarter mile of the homes and a lot of

storage on the city streets where people are registered somewhere and parking in other places so there are lots of elements as part of the legislation and i do hear you and i hope that we can continue working together. supervisor campos. >> thank you. i wanted to make a couple of comments and i wanted to ask supervisor dufty and again one point i know there are differences in opinion how to proceed with these issues, but one thing that is very clear i don't think that anyone should question or doubt the motives. i think people here are trying to do the right thing, and we may have disagreements how to do certain things, but i know every supervisor here cares about the comments that were made and certainly cares about people, and i think something else that we're probably all in agreement about is the fact that that i am certainly grateful that supervisor dufty and his office are working with the mta

because i know they're going to bring a certain level of respect and understanding to the needs of the folks that are impacted that i think is really important, so supervisor i was just wondering if you could tell us about for folks that find themselves in this situation that they maybe you know living in vehicles that are covered -- i mean what are the things we would like them to know and to do? one gentleman i think rightly noted we see the signs that tell us we can't do certain things but the things that we can do. >> so the fliers have the 24 number for the hot team. jason is very forth coming with the cell phone number so jason's number is eight five zero 7413. and i think those are the best routes. the hope office as

well. certainly we're working closely with jason and his team so anyone can contacted us. we're in room 18 of city hall so if someone is living in a vehicle they could come to room 18 in city hall or contact me, so we welcome the opportunity to make a connection, understand what people's circumstances are, and how we can work with them, and i think we're going to try and take an individual approach as we can with each situation and see what we can do. >> okay. thank you. thank you supervisor. i appreciate it. and again thank you to you and your office and to the mta for their work, and i just want to make a comment in response to some of the things said today. let me say this. i voted against this legislation, not because i was questioning or requested the intent. i think the supervisors that brought it forward are trying to address

legitimate concerns and even though i voted against the legislation i can see there is a benefit in having something like this because we are having these discussions, but i do think there is a larger point that goes beyond this legislation that i think is important for us to keep in mind here in this building. we in san francisco are very fortunate that we have very thriving economy, and we are doing extremely well relative to the rest -- not only the country, the state, but even relative to the rest of the bay area, and i really think that we have to use this opportunity to address i think a fundamental problem that we have that we have in many respects in these times of great wealth and progress for some folks. we

have a tale of two cities in a way. we have some people doing extremely well in san francisco,, and then we have people who are struggling, and i think we as a city collectively need to make a priority ensuring that the needs of the people who are struggling are indeed met, and what you see is you have issues like this one that that problems surface because i don't believe we are doing enough as a city to really address this larger issue, and i think until we do that these issues will continue to come to the surface, and i think what we're doing is very positive, but the reality is that as much as i know supervisor dufty and other agencies want to do all these amazing things they also

don't have the resources they need to make those things happen, so i think we as policy makers need to make it a priority that we do address this divide, and that we do deal with the fact that we have a tale of two cities in many respects and i can feel the frustration from some of the folks that spoke today, and while that frustration maybe directed at this committee right now i think it's a frustration that rightly rests with all of us here in city hall, so i do believe i'm a glass half full type of person and i think out of challenge comes opportunity, but i do think we need to have this discussion -- not only about this individual issue, but the larger discussion about what is happening with us as a city. are we making sure as we have this great wealth that we are

taking care of the neediest in our communities and not just the neediest it's also working folks and middle class folks. it's a lot of people that feel that -- rightly feel they're being left behind so i think that is a larger discussion but i think that we need to provide some context for why people are feeling this way. thank you. >> thank you supervisor. so i want to thank again the mta. i want to thank bevin, hope and of course to jason i want to especially thank you for all the work that you do. i think it's hard work everyday what you're trying to accomplish. i want to say thank you to that and of course to the speakers. i appreciate that and even though we are divergent at this moment. colleagues we have heard the motion and heard public comment.

do we have a motion to file? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. madam clerk are there any other items? >> well are no other items. >> thank you. we are adjourned.

.... >> i'm here to tell you that one billion rising is the biggest global axon the planet towards ending violence towards woman and girls.

(applause). . today 20300s one billion rise something dancing up the will of the world to end vps against woman and girls once and for all we have expanded our list beyond country that is the united nations recognizes as countries and that is how large the response of your brother and is sisters around the world has been to this call and together we will make it so that this issue is never marginalized again. sphrafertion you have been rising all day long from coaching and marching across the bay bridge this morning. dancers who were just here now and trans for grace cathedral for welcoming us andel rio tonight will be tans adancing all night long and what better place to rise than at san francisco's beautiful city hall and to celebrat